Poll: Free will most people think they have

[Bronzeage]

If it could be determined that human beings do not have free will, because everything which happens is caused by the series of actions before it, so that every action and decision is predictable, given the correct information of past events, what would we do with this information?

 

[Speakpigeon]

The issue of free will is ultimately an issue of the nature of brain and mind, not how people use the term.

This is irrelevant because this thread is about how people use the term.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

If it could be determined that human beings do not have free will, because everything which happens is caused by the series of actions before it, so that every action and decision is predictable, given the correct information of past events, what would we do with this information?

In theory we could predict every choice made by the subject, somewhat as if we were the subject, or build a machine doing this, in real time, and check that it would do the same things as the subject. We could even dispense with the subject altogether. Build a machine for each of us and just retire, knowing our job will be well done.
EB

 

[ryan]

Whatever is happening within the system, the organism, is largely unconscious. A literal web of unconscious states and conditions that contribute to options perceived (consciousness) and actions taken.

"Largely" is not good enough. There could possibly be limited free will within the constraints of a few choices/options at a time.

To have at least some free will is enough to have free will.

 

[Bronzeage]

If it could be determined that human beings do not have free will, because everything which happens is caused by the series of actions before it, so that every action and decision is predictable, given the correct information of past events, what would we do with this information?

In theory we could predict every choice made by the subject, somewhat as if we were the subject, or build a machine doing this, in real time, and check that it would do the same things as the subject. We could even dispense with the subject altogether. Build a machine for each of us and just retire, knowing our job will be well done.
EB

Could this machine predict the resulting change in our behavior, based on our knowledge of the future?

 

[DBT]

The issue of free will is ultimately an issue of the nature of brain and mind, not how people use the term.

This is irrelevant because this thread is about how people use the term.
EB

It is related to what you said in the OP; ''We also have the impression that when we make it, our choice is essentially determined by us, that is, by the person we are at the moment we make this choice - EB''

What I pointed out is directly related to your comment ''the impression that when we make it, our choice is essentially determined by us'' because what this ''us'' refers to lies at the heart of the free will issue.

 

[DBT]

Whatever is happening within the system, the organism, is largely unconscious. A literal web of unconscious states and conditions that contribute to options perceived (consciousness) and actions taken.

"Largely" is not good enough. There could possibly be limited free will within the constraints of a few choices/options at a time.

To have at least some free will is enough to have free will.

It is more than good enough because conscious representation of the world and self is necessarily based on what came before, the unconscious processing of information...the very information that feeds conscious activity, the very information you experience in conscious form; your thought and feelings, desires and fears, choices made and actions taken.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If it could be determined that human beings do not have free will, because everything which happens is caused by the series of actions before it, so that every action and decision is predictable, given the correct information of past events, what would we do with this information?

In theory we could predict every choice made by the subject, somewhat as if we were the subject, or build a machine doing this, in real time, and check that it would do the same things as the subject. We could even dispense with the subject altogether. Build a machine for each of us and just retire, knowing our job will be well done.
EB

Could this machine predict the resulting change in our behavior, based on our knowledge of the future?

Well, I suppose it's at least conceivable.

I guess it would be difficult to know what it would be capable of in theory.

It might even try to stop us making certain choices it doesn't like.
EB

 

[ryan]

Whatever is happening within the system, the organism, is largely unconscious. A literal web of unconscious states and conditions that contribute to options perceived (consciousness) and actions taken.

"Largely" is not good enough. There could possibly be limited free will within the constraints of a few choices/options at a time.

To have at least some free will is enough to have free will.

It is more than good enough because conscious representation of the world and self is necessarily based on what came before, the unconscious processing of information...the very information that feeds conscious activity, the very information you experience in conscious form; your thought and feelings, desires and fears, choices made and actions taken.

But we know unconsciousness is largely responsible for choices made; it does not mean that freedom cannot also fit in somewhere. "Largely unconsciousness" plus everything else that is determined must be shown to be complete as we already know that much observed in the brain is determined mechanics, except for quantum microtubules and such.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The issue of free will is ultimately an issue of the nature of brain and mind, not how people use the term.

This is irrelevant because this thread is about how people use the term.
EB

It is related to what you said in the OP; ''We also have the impression that when we make it, our choice is essentially determined by us, that is, by the person we are at the moment we make this choice - EB''

What I pointed out is directly related to your comment ''the impression that when we make it, our choice is essentially determined by us'' because what this ''us'' refers to lies at the heart of the free will issue.

If it's true that our choices are essentially determined by us then it doesn't matter how exactly this determination is brought about. It will remain true whether we live in a deterministic universe or not, whether God exists or not. And whatever our brain does or does not do. So, your remark is irrelevant.

And this thread is about how people use the term free will, and whether they use it to mean that our choices are essentially determined by us, not whether it's true that they are. So, again, your remark is irrelevant.
EB

 

[DBT]

It is related to what you said in the OP; ''We also have the impression that when we make it, our choice is essentially determined by us, that is, by the person we are at the moment we make this choice - EB''

What I pointed out is directly related to your comment ''the impression that when we make it, our choice is essentially determined by us'' because what this ''us'' refers to lies at the heart of the free will issue.

If it's true that our choices are essentially determined by us then it doesn't matter how exactly this determination is brought about. It will remain true whether we live in a deterministic universe or not, whether God exists or not. And whatever our brain does or does not do. So, your remark is irrelevant.

And this thread is about how people use the term free will, and whether they use it to mean that our choices are essentially determined by us, not whether it's true that they are. So, again, your remark is irrelevant.
EB

Determined by ''us'' being one part of the issue of contention. For a start...what precisely is this ''us?'' That needs to be defined.

 

[DBT]

It is more than good enough because conscious representation of the world and self is necessarily based on what came before, the unconscious processing of information...the very information that feeds conscious activity, the very information you experience in conscious form; your thought and feelings, desires and fears, choices made and actions taken.

But we know unconsciousness is largely responsible for choices made; it does not mean that freedom cannot also fit in somewhere. "Largely unconsciousness" plus everything else that is determined must be shown to be complete as we already know that much observed in the brain is determined mechanics, except for quantum microtubules and such.

When I said ''largely unconscious'' I meant the activity of the brain is largely unconscious, not meaning to suggest that consciousness is somehow able to make decisions independently from the information processing activity of a brain.

The freedom we have is not freedom of will in the sense that will is able to override what the brain is doing and make alternative choices, but in the very ability of a complex self programming (acquiring new information) brain to perceive alternatives, select options and act upon the selected choice. Which is interactive decision making, an interaction of environment and brain, with the ability to act.

 

[ryan]

It is more than good enough because conscious representation of the world and self is necessarily based on what came before, the unconscious processing of information...the very information that feeds conscious activity, the very information you experience in conscious form; your thought and feelings, desires and fears, choices made and actions taken.

But we know unconsciousness is largely responsible for choices made; it does not mean that freedom cannot also fit in somewhere. "Largely unconsciousness" plus everything else that is determined must be shown to be complete as we already know that much observed in the brain is determined mechanics, except for quantum microtubules and such.

When I said ''largely unconscious'' I meant the activity of the brain is largely unconscious, not meaning to suggest that consciousness is somehow able to make decisions independently from the information processing activity of a brain.

The freedom we have is not freedom of will in the sense that will is able to override what the brain is doing and make alternative choices, but in the very ability of a complex self programming (acquiring new information) brain to perceive alternatives, select options and act upon the selected choice. Which is interactive decision making, an interaction of environment and brain, with the ability to act.

But these issues you present here are already know and have been dealt with. I just wanted to respond to the nonissue that our brains are largely unconscious. That is not a problem.

 

[DBT]

When I said ''largely unconscious'' I meant the activity of the brain is largely unconscious, not meaning to suggest that consciousness is somehow able to make decisions independently from the information processing activity of a brain.

The freedom we have is not freedom of will in the sense that will is able to override what the brain is doing and make alternative choices, but in the very ability of a complex self programming (acquiring new information) brain to perceive alternatives, select options and act upon the selected choice. Which is interactive decision making, an interaction of environment and brain, with the ability to act.

But these issues you present here are already know and have been dealt with. I just wanted to respond to the nonissue that our brains are largely unconscious. That is not a problem.

You have responded and argued many times, but the issues I raised here have not been dealt with in the sense that these issues have been resolved in favour of free will.

The problem for the concept of free will still stands as described: it is the state and condition of a brain in the instance of a decision being made that determines option selected and action taken in that moment in time.

Which is rational decision making (sometimes irrational), related actions taken, but not to free will as expressed in ''freely willed decisions'' as if it is conscious will that makes decisions rather than the state and condition of a brain in any instance of decision making.

 

[Juma]

We would all identify the cause of a change in outcome to be whatever was changed in the initial conditions. In this case the changed conditions would be located inside the subject. So the cause for a change in outcome would be seen as located in the subject.

You're characterisation of the situation as external forces acting on the subject is misleading. We have in fact two distinct parts of the universe: the subject and its environment. How the situation evolves over time has to be the result of the interactions between these two parts. Presenting the situation as just external forces acting upon the subject is just wrong.
EB

I'm not following you. I still don't see how you have eliminated the possibility that your choices are not to some extent externally determined (which is what you need to do if you're attempting to satisfy your dictionary definition (post #7).

In our current understanding of nature, and outside any catastrophic situations such as a fire, a blast of radiations etc., what's physically going on inside a human being within the short window of time of a decision is essentially independent from his environment as it is at that point in time. Obviously, we can travel back in time along the causality chain and quickly find external causes. These will indeed be external to the subject but only as he is at that point in the past, not at the time of the decision. At the time of the decision, in normal circumstances, the decision is all done essentially within the subject, and so independently of external forces.

And I'm not trying to eliminate possibilities. I'm just trying to articulate the best interpretation of free will I can think of. An interpretation that makes sense and that fits what most people say.
EB

Thats how computers work too..

 

[The AntiChris]

Could this machine predict the resulting change in our behavior, based on our knowledge of the future?

Well, I suppose it's at least conceivable.

Complete predictability from within the universe (or any system) is not possible. This paper explains why: Determinism and the Paradox of Predictability

 

[Speakpigeon]

It is related to what you said in the OP; ''We also have the impression that when we make it, our choice is essentially determined by us, that is, by the person we are at the moment we make this choice - EB''

What I pointed out is directly related to your comment ''the impression that when we make it, our choice is essentially determined by us'' because what this ''us'' refers to lies at the heart of the free will issue.

If it's true that our choices are essentially determined by us then it doesn't matter how exactly this determination is brought about. It will remain true whether we live in a deterministic universe or not, whether God exists or not. And whatever our brain does or does not do. So, your remark is irrelevant.

And this thread is about how people use the term free will, and whether they use it to mean that our choices are essentially determined by us, not whether it's true that they are. So, again, your remark is irrelevant.
EB

Determined by ''us'' being one part of the issue of contention. For a start...what precisely is this ''us?'' That needs to be defined.

You don't know what's 'us'?!

What is it you don't understand about life?


And it's a fact that all we know of and can investigate properly that make decisions and make choices are people.

In other words, us. See?

And I'd like to see the evidence that a brain on it's own make choices.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

In our current understanding of nature, and outside any catastrophic situations such as a fire, a blast of radiations etc., what's physically going on inside a human being within the short window of time of a decision is essentially independent from his environment as it is at that point in time. Obviously, we can travel back in time along the causality chain and quickly find external causes. These will indeed be external to the subject but only as he is at that point in the past, not at the time of the decision. At the time of the decision, in normal circumstances, the decision is all done essentially within the subject, and so independently of external forces.

And I'm not trying to eliminate possibilities. I'm just trying to articulate the best interpretation of free will I can think of. An interpretation that makes sense and that fits what most people say.
EB

Thats how computers work too..

Ah, at last somebody with a working brain! Congratulation!

Now, ask you're computer what it thinks about free will and whether it has it.

And that's also how your coffee machine works for that matter, you know.

Yet, we value this property we have while computers and coffee machines don't. And they won't ever do much with it, I think.

And, humans aren't routinely switched off without their consent.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Could this machine predict the resulting change in our behavior, based on our knowledge of the future?

Well, I suppose it's at least conceivable.

Complete predictability from within the universe (or any system) is not possible. This paper explains why: Determinism and the Paradox of Predictability

Sure. That's if determinism is true. And, personally, I remain open to the idea that reality is much weirder than rational people think now.
EB

 

[The AntiChris]

Complete predictability from within the universe (or any system) is not possible. This paper explains why: Determinism and the Paradox of Predictability

Sure. That's if determinism is true.

No. It's true whether determinism is true or not.